M. Davis v. State ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED
MAY 1998 SESSION
September 10, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
MAURICE DEWAYNE DAVIS, )
)
Appellant, ) No. 03C01-9705-CR-00170
)
) Knox County
v. )
) Honorable Mary Beth Leibowitz, Judge
)
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) (Post-Conviction)
)
Appellee. )
For the Appellant: For the Appellee:
Thomas Trevathan John Knox Walkup
6208 Baum Drive Attorney General of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN 37919 and
Janis L. Turner
Assistant Attorney General of Tennessee
425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Randall E. Nichols
District Attorney General
and
Fred Bright
Assistant District Attorney General
City-County Building
Knoxville, TN 37902
OPINION FILED:____________________
AFFIRMED
Joseph M. Tipton
Judge
OPINION
The petitioner, Maurice Dewayne Davis, appeals as of right from the
judgment of the Knox County Criminal Court denying him post-conviction relief from his
1993 conviction for second degree murder that resulted in a twenty-five-year sentence
in the Department of Correction. The petitioner contends that he entered an involuntary
and unknowing guilty plea through the ineffective assistance of counsel.
The record on appeal reflects that the petitioner was originally charged
with first degree murder, but he pled guilty to second degree murder after jury selection
started. This was precipitated by the fact that the defense was made aware that a
codefendant was willing to testify against the petitioner and had given a statement that
could justify a conviction for first degree murder. The defense had previously planned
to use self-defense as justification for the killing. The petitioner’s attorneys advised him
of his exposure to a life sentence and he was allowed to go home -- even with jurors
selected -- to consult with his family before he entered a plea.
The trial court’s detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law reflect that
the petitioner testified at the post-conviction evidentiary hearing that his attorneys did
not tell him what to do, only giving advice, and that he had wanted to avoid a life
sentence. One of the attorneys testified, as well. The trial court concluded that the
attorneys had prepared the defense and acted professionally and that the guilty plea
was entered knowingly and voluntarily.
The petitioner’s contentions in this appeal are the same as he raised in
the trial court. However, the record before us does not contain a transcript of the post-
conviction evidentiary hearing at which the petitioner and the attorney testified. An
appellant has the duty to include in the record on appeal all trial court events that are
2
relevant to the issues presented on appeal. See T.R.A.P. 24(a). In the absence of a
complete record, we must presume that the trial court’s ruling on the issue is correct.
See State v. Bennett, 798 S.W.2d 783, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990).
In any event, the trial court’s findings and conclusions that are contained
in the record reflect that the petitioner’s constitutional rights were not violated. The trial
court’s judgment denying post-conviction relief is affirmed.
____________________________
Joseph M. Tipton, Judge
CONCUR:
__________________________
Joe G. Riley, Judge
__________________________
Curwood Witt, Judge
3